Barack Obama: Neo-Spartan

When a Spartan baby was born, soldiers came to the house and examined it carefully to determine its strength.The baby was bathed in wine rather than water, to see its reaction. If a baby was weak, the Spartans exposed it on the hillside or took it away to become a slave (helot). Infanticide was common in ancient cultures, but the Spartans were particularly picky about their children. It was not just a matter of the family, the city-state decided the fate of the child.

What’s emerging is that Barack Obama — this “new” kind of politician — would have been completely at home with this ancient practice:

I have just a couple of comments. As I always say, I am not a hardcore pro-Life person. I can envision situations in which abortion is acceptable. My position on abortion, however, is completely irrelevant, since what Stanek describes is not abortion — it’s murder. This is the death of a living being that is no longer connected to the woman. As Stanek said, even NARAL didn’t pretend to defend this practice.

The other thing you need to keep in mind as you think about Obama’s resolute defense of a barbaric practice that was even seen as anomalous in the ancient world (since most of the cultures surrounding Sparta were revolted by its habitual infanticide) is that Obama already had children when he voted against the Act. That is, he didn’t have the defense that infants were abstractions to him. I know that my views about abortion changed fairly drastically when a fetus morphed from being a political abstraction into being the little lives carried in my own body that emerged to become my children. Obama seems to believe that his live-birth children deserve love and care, but that other, defective children don’t — again bringing him in line with Sparta.

Obama isn’t a new kind of politician. His kind of politics has its roots thousands of years ago, and is as distasteful now as it was then.

Share this:

What an appropriate analogy! This is another example of how tone deaf Obama is when it comes to public sentiment, bitter gun-clingers that we are. Even self-serving politicians in Illinois and the U.S. Congress knew better than to dance with the devil on this issue.

Although I must admit that I’ve come across a number of bitter libs in the Bay Area who cling to Roe v. Wade and their antipathy toward the fetuses and other human beings who aren’t them or their own as a way to explain their frustrations. /sarc

kalifornia kafir

What an appropriate analogy! This is another example of how tone deaf Obama is when it comes to public sentiment, bitter gun-clingers that we are. Even self-serving politicians in Illinois and the U.S. Congress knew better than to dance with the devil on this issue.

Although I must admit that I’ve come across a number of bitter libs in the Bay Area who cling to Roe v. Wade and their antipathy toward fetuses and other human beings who aren’t them or their own as a way to explain their frustrations. /sarc

suek

>>…I’ve come across a number of bitter libs in the Bay Area…>>

Listening to Hugh Hewitt yesterday, he mentioned that the “bitter people clinging…etc” which he initially thought was an arrogance of the individual sort of comment actually seems to have derived from Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”…

While it doesnt quite have the quiet measured tone of Jill Stanek’s previous work (Like her very reasonably entitled article, “Michael J. Fox is a cannibal”http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41010) , the Chicago Tribune does a decent job taking readers “through this potential wedge issue clearly and simply. . . ”

I’m not a fan of abortion, but this is as over the top as the Democrats equating John McCain to Dr. Strangelove.

Six Republicans also siad “No” to this bill, for reasons explained in this piece.

From the Chicago Tribune:

“But of course it’s at the state level where most of the legislative action takes place in the abortion issue. And in 2001, abortion-rights opponent Sen. Patrick O’Malley (R-Palos Park) sponsored Senate Bills 1093, 1094 and 1095 — “born-alive” bills that didn’t have the “neutrality” language and contained additional provisions that would have exposed doctors to greater penalties.

Those bills failed. A similar attempt in 2002 — Senate Bills 1661, 1662 and 1663 — also failed. Obama voted both “present” and “no” on these bills — same effect, different optics. Six Republican senators voted “present” or “no” on at least one of these “born-alive” bills as well.

One major sticking point was that these bills did not contain the “neutrality language” regarding abortion rights that the federal proposal contained.”